« AnteriorContinuar »
him to give up the author of that publication, for which he had exposed himself to such unpleasant consequences, and Du Moulin, who was at that time in England, felt himself to be in danger: but he was saved, as he says, by the pride of Milton, who, refusing to acknowledge himself in an error and persisting in his attack upon Morus, induced the
one of the causes of the quarrel between Salmasius and Morus; and he was pressed by his former friend and patron to marry the girl: but her character was much too light to admit of the idea of her baving been seduced, or of her being made, (in the vulgar phrase,) an honest woman. Of the temper of this confidante of Madame de Saumaise's, a whimsical instance is related by Vossius, in a letter to N. Heinsius, dated from Amsterdam on the 24th of November 1654. For the entertainment of my readers, I will transcribe the whole passage : Lis ipsi (Salmasio) cum Moro. Cupit enim ut is Anglicanam suam in uxorem ducat, quod alter recusat. Verùm isti duo boni amantes, qui nuper tam suaviter et amicè oscula jungebant, valdè nunc sibi invicem sunt infensi. Ante quatriduum siquidem, cum forte Maurus huic nostræ occurrerat in vasta istâ areâ, quæ ædibus Salmasii adjacets statim capillitium ejus invasit, pluribusque adfecit verberibus : neque eo contenta etiam fuste in illum sævire conabatur, nisi bonus ille socius in horreum confugisset saper struicem quandam, jactuque se vindicasset cespitum. Huic spectaculo non defuit ingens, spectatorum numerus, qui ex viciniâ passim eo confluxerant. Vides quam omnes iis in ædibus sint yuvaixoxgatóuevos. Facile hinc possis conjicere falsos fuisse rumores qui de subactâ Britannica passim fuere sparsi, cum illa potius Maurum subegerit. Vel si verus sit rumor, adparet non satis fuisse subactam. (Burman. Syllo. iii, 651.]
Our women, as it appears by this anecdote, can on some occasions fight with the spirit of our men.
government to suffer the real author of the offence to escape without notice. This however, is not an accurate statement of the case. Early in the controversy Milton had been assured that Morus was not the writer of the
Regii sanguinis Clamor:” but Milton was certain that Morus was the publisher of the work and the writer of the dedication. Milton knew also that the name of Morus was higher in the literary world than that of Du Moulin; and, regarding them both as joint parties in a bond, he conceived himself to be justified in calling upon the most responsible of the two for the payment of his debt. With respect to punishment, he would be averse from inflicting on his adversary any other than the brand of the pen; and would certainly be more inclined to conceal an ohnoxious writer than to expose him to the law. Du Moulin's triumph on his escape, to whatever cause he might be indebted for it, was certainly not inconsiderable, as the passage inserted in the note will sufficiently demonstrate.
? Spectabam intereà tacitus, nec sine lento risu fætum meum ad alienas fores expositum ; et cæcum et furiosum Miltonem Andabatarum more pugnantem et asgoua xóuevoy, à quo feriretur et quem contra feriret ignarum. At Morus, tantæ invidiæ impar, in regià causâ frigere cæpit, & “ Clamoris” authorem Mil
Having taken a general view of this con
tono indicavit. · Enimvero in suâ ad Miltoni maledieta responsione, duos adhibuit testes præcipuæ apud perduelles fidei, qui authorem probè nossent & rogati possent revelare. Unde sanè mihi & capiti meo certissimum impendebat exitium. At magnus ille justitiæ vindex, cui. & hanc operam & hoc capat libens devoveram, per Miltoni superbiam salutem meam asseruit, ut ejus sapientiæ solenne est ex malis bona, ex tenebris lucem elicere. Miltonus enim, qui plenis caninæ. eloquentiæ velis in Morum invectus fuerat, quique id fermè unicum Defensionis secundæ suæ fecerat argumentum, ut Mori vitam atque famam laceraret, adduci nunquam potuit, ut se tam crassè hallucinatum esse fateretur. Scilicet metuens ne cæcitati ejus populus illuderet, eamque compararent grammaticorum pueri Catullo illi cæco apud Juvenalem, qui piscem Domitiano donatum laudaturus.
Perseverante igitur Miltono totum illud periculosi in Regem amoris crimen Moro impingere, non poterant cæteri perduelles sine magnâ boni patroni sui injuriâ alium à Moro tanti criminis reum peragere.
Cumque Miltonus me salvum esse mallet quam se ridiculum, hoc operæ meæ præmium tuli, ut Miltonum, quem inclementius acceperam, haberem patronum, & capitis mei sedulum υπερασπιστής.' '
This extract is made from a kind of prefatory epistle, intended by Du Moulin to accompany those furious iambics which he vented against Milton, in their second edition with “ the Regii sanguinis Clamor." Having been omitted however, by some accident or other, in its proper place, this exposition of the author's dangers in the royal cause was subsequently published in a miscellaneous volume, printed at Cambridge in 1670. Milton's blindness supplies the generous Du Moulin with many occasions of exultation and insult. The indifference or rather the pleasure, with which this worthy divine beholds the punishment, due to his own offence,
troversy, in which Milton's last productions are as distinguishable as his former ones for spirit, vigour, and acuteness, it will be proper for us to return to his “ Second Defence;" of which our notices have not yet been ample in proportion to its demands. It is indeed filled with such interesting matter, that our readers would have cause to censure us if we were to pass over it with only common attention. From those parts of it, which relate immediately to the author, we have more than once had occasion to insert extracts in our page, and of this portion of the work we shall now content ourselves with transcribing that passage which replies to the reproaches of his antagonist on his blind
inflicted on another, may be also worthy of remark. The sentiment of the Epicurean poet,
Suave etiam belli certamina magna tueri
was much less depraved than that discovered on this occasion by Du Moulin: for the battle, which he thus delighted to contemplate without exposing himself to any participation of the danger, was the result of bis own voluntary act, and a battle also in which his friend was suffering cruel wounds in his stead. In this man's conduct we are disgusted with complicated baseness—with the most selfish and mean cowardice, united with the most egregious want of principle :- and yet did his sycophantic loyalty raise him to a high station in our church, and place him in a stall of the metropolitan cathedral, when he scarcely merited a stall in the stable of an inn.
ness and the pretended deformity of his person.
Veniamus nunc ad mea crimina: estne quod in vità aut moribus reprehendat? Certè nihil. Quid ergo? Quod nemo nisi immanis ac barbarus fecisset, formam mihi ac cæci. tatem objectat.
Monstrum horrendum, informe, ingens, cui lumen ademptum.
Nunquam existimabam equidem fore, ut de formâ cum Cyclope certamen mihi esset; verum statim se revocat. " Quanquam nec ingens, quo nihil est exilius, exsanguius, contractius." Tametsi virum nihil attinet de formâ dicere, tandem quando hic quoque est unde gratias Deo agam et mendaces redarguam, nè quis (quod Hispanorum vulgus de hæreticis, quos vocant, plus nimio sacerdotibus suis credulum opinatur) ne fortè cynocephalum quempiam, aut rhinocerota esse putet, dicam. Deformis quidem à nemine, quod sciam, qui modd me vidit, sum unquam habitus; formosus nécne, minds laboro; staturâ fateor non sum procerâ: sed quæ mediocri tamen quàm parvæ propior sit; sed quid si parvâ, quâ et summi sæpe tum pace tum bello viri fuere, quanquam parva cur dicitur, quæ ad virtutem satis magna est? Sed neque exilis admodum, eo